FDA ex­perts of­fer a unan­i­mous en­dorse­ment for Spark’s pi­o­neer­ing AAV gene ther­a­py for blind­ness

Kather­ine High, head of R&D, Spark Ther­a­peu­tics

A pi­o­neer­ing AAV gene ther­a­py from Spark Ther­a­peu­tics $ONCE took a gi­ant stride to­ward an FDA ap­proval to­day as an out­side pan­el of ex­perts of­fered their sup­port for get­ting this game-chang­ing treat­ment in­to the mar­ket af­ter look­ing over the da­ta and hear­ing from some of the se­vere­ly sight-im­paired pa­tients whose lives had been trans­formed by this ther­a­py.

The vote was 16 to o fa­vor­ing the ben­e­fit-risk pro­file of the drug, back­ing an OK for voreti­gene nepar­vovec by the agency’s Cel­lu­lar, Tis­sue and Gene Ther­a­pies Ad­vi­so­ry Com­mit­tee and pro­vid­ing a com­pelling rea­son for the FDA to fol­low through with an his­toric first US ap­proval of a vec­tor-de­liv­ered gene ther­a­py.

“Gene ther­a­py has made my world so much more brighter,” said one young pa­tient, who went on to de­scribe how he could see the moon for the first time, go out at night, watch fa­cial ex­pres­sions, and ba­si­cal­ly live his life more nor­mal­ly in­stead of wait­ing for blind­ness to take over. And Chris­t­ian Guardi­no talked about how the treat­ment four years ago saved his sight, a span of time when the dark­ness might well have closed in.

This was no panacea. As the agency’s in­ter­nal re­view made clear, voreti­gene nepar­vovec (or Lux­tur­na) — which us­es an ade­no-as­so­ci­at­ed vi­ral vec­tor — im­proved sight us­ing the light lev­els mea­sured for the pri­ma­ry end­point, but fell far short of cur­ing reti­nal dy­s­tro­phy trig­gered by ge­net­ic RPE65 mu­ta­tions. Im­prove­ment in vi­sion is al­so lim­it­ed by the num­ber of vi­able reti­nal cells they have left at the time they’re treat­ed, ac­cord­ing to in­ves­ti­ga­tors.

Jeff Mar­raz­zo, Spark CEO

The pan­el ex­perts faced ques­tions about the dura­bil­i­ty of this eye ther­a­py, the pos­si­bil­i­ty that pa­tients will need mul­ti­ple treat­ments in or­der to pre­serve vi­sion gains, the right age to use it and the use of a com­plete­ly nov­el end­point for the pri­ma­ry goal when stan­dard vi­su­al acu­ity achieve­ments fell far short of the goal on sta­tis­ti­cal sig­nif­i­cance.

The ex­perts, though, seemed gen­er­al­ly im­pressed by the re­sults — with some reser­va­tions about the end­point — and sev­er­al were open to treat­ing very young pa­tients. Spark is sug­gest­ing three and old­er, and CEO Jeff Mar­raz­zo told me he was in­ter­est­ed in the en­cour­age­ment he heard to go even younger in some cas­es.

While a for­mal ap­proval is not guar­an­teed, it would be con­found­ing for the agency to ig­nore the pan­el and the ros­ter of pa­tients who came for­ward to talk about be­ing able to play, study and par­tic­i­pate in the kind of day-to-day ac­tiv­i­ties that had been de­nied them all their lives. An ap­proval here could well be the first of many to come, as a group of play­ers ad­vance treat­ments that use a be­nign virus to in­tro­duce a cor­rect­ed gene to fix a wide range of con­di­tions.

“It re­al­ly came to­geth­er in tri­an­gu­lat­ing a bunch of points,” Mar­raz­zo told me af­ter the land­mark vote came through, cit­ing not just the pa­tient tes­ti­mo­ny but al­so the physi­cians who were there to back up the ap­pli­ca­tion.

Mar­raz­zo isn’t of­fer­ing any price yet, and won’t un­til the ap­proval comes through. But it won’t be cheap. Es­ti­mates for one-time costs of­ten hov­er around the $1 mil­lion mark in gene ther­a­py. The CEO, who’s ob­vi­ous­ly thought quite a lot about it, says the clear path to en­sur­ing ac­cess un­der the cur­rent rules that gov­erns in­sur­ance points to a one-time charge per eye. It’s hard to of­fer an al­ter­na­tive mod­el, he adds, giv­en the kind of porta­bil­i­ty is­sues and pay­ment mod­els peo­ple have with their in­sur­ance cov­er­age to­day — but he’s in­ter­est­ed in ex­plor­ing it and see­ing what has to change to make that hap­pen.

Eigh­teen years ago, the gene ther­a­py field was near­ly shoved in­to obliv­ion af­ter the death of a pa­tient in a tri­al be­ing con­duct­ed by Penn’s James Wil­son. But over the past 10 years in­ves­ti­ga­tors, us­ing some of the same tech­nol­o­gy that Wil­son helped cre­ate, have mount­ed a mas­sive come­back ef­fort. In Spark’s case, the Chil­dren’s Hos­pi­tal of Philadel­phia played a key role in push­ing the ear­ly R&D work, giv­ing the biotech a big leg up in the race to get the first such gene ther­a­py in­to the US mar­ket.

There have been two oth­er gene ther­a­pies in Eu­rope, in­clud­ing Glax­o­SmithK­line’s Strimvelis. But they’ve been rarely used. The ques­tion now is how these treat­ments can get root­ed in the US mar­ket and then start to spread around the world.

That day looks much clos­er than it has ever been.

Kather­ine High, pres­i­dent and head of R&D at Spark Ther­a­peu­tics said:

The clin­i­cal pro­gram for Lux­tur­na in­cludes pa­tient da­ta that show ef­fi­ca­cy for up to four years on end­points in­clud­ing bi­lat­er­al mul­ti-lu­mi­nance mo­bil­i­ty test (MLMT) score change and full-field light sen­si­tiv­i­ty thresh­old (FST) test­ing, with ob­ser­va­tion on­go­ing. We look for­ward to con­tin­u­ing to work with FDA as it com­pletes its re­view of Lux­tur­na.

Tar­get­ing a Po­ten­tial Vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty of Cer­tain Can­cers with DNA Dam­age Re­sponse

Every individual’s DNA is unique, and because of this, every patient responds differently to disease and treatment. It is astonishing how four tiny building blocks of our DNA – A, T, C, G – dictate our health, disease, and how we age.

The tricky thing about DNA is that it is constantly exposed to damage by sources such as ultraviolet light, certain chemicals, toxins, and even natural biochemical processes inside our cells.¹ If ignored, DNA damage will accumulate in replicating cells, giving rise to mutations that can lead to premature aging, cancer, and other diseases.

Fol­low biotechs go­ing pub­lic with the End­points News IPO Track­er

The Endpoints News team is continuing to track IPO filings for 2021, and we’ve designed a new tracker page for the effort.

Check it out here: Biopharma IPOs 2021 from Endpoints News

You’ll be able to find all the biotechs that have filed and priced so far this year, sortable by quarter and listed by newest first. As of the time of publishing on Feb. 25, there have already been 16 biotechs debuting on Nasdaq so far this year, with an additional four having filed their S-1 paperwork.

Tom Barnes (Orna)

The mR­NA era is here. MPM be­lieves the fu­ture be­longs to oR­NA — and Big Phar­ma wants a seat at the ta­ble

If the ultra-fast clinical development of Covid-19 vaccines opened the world’s eyes to the promises of messenger RNA, the subsequent delays in supply offered a crash course on the ultra-complex process of producing them. Even before the formulation and fill-finish steps, mRNA is the precious end product from an arduous journey involving enzyme-aided transcription, modification and purification.

For Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research, Gilead’s Kite and Astellas, it’s time to rethink the way therapeutic RNA is engineered.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 102,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

S&P ex­pects steady ero­sion in Big Phar­ma's cred­it pro­file in 2021 as new M&A deals roll in — but don't un­der­es­ti­mate their un­der­ly­ing strength

S&P Global has taken a look at the dominant forces shaping the pharma market and come to the conclusion that there will be more downgrades than upgrades in 2021 — the 8th straight year of steady decline.

But it’s not all bad news. Some things are looking up, and there’s still plenty of money to be made in an industry that enjoys a 30% to 40% profit margin, once you factor in steep R&D expenses.

Steve Cutler, Icon CEO (Icon)

In the biggest CRO takeover in years, Icon doles out $12B for PRA Health Sci­ences to fo­cus on de­cen­tral­ized clin­i­cal work

Contract research M&A had a healthy run in recent years before recently petering out. But with the market ripe for a big buyout and the Covid-19 pandemic emphasizing the importance of decentralized trials, Wednesday saw a tectonic shift in the CRO world.

Icon, the Dublin-based CRO, will acquire PRA Health Sciences for $12 billion in a move that will shake up the highest rungs of a fragmented market. The merger would combine the 5th- and 6th-largest CROs by 2020 revenue, according to Icon, and the merger will set the newco up to be the second-largest global CRO behind only IQVIA.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 102,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ken Frazier, Merck CEO (Bess Adler/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

UP­DAT­ED: Mer­ck takes a swing at the IL-2 puz­zle­box with a $1.85B play for buzzy Pan­dion and its au­toim­mune hope­fuls

When Roger Perlmutter bid farewell to Merck late last year, the drugmaker perhaps best known now for sales giant Keytruda signaled its intent to take a swing at early-stage novelty with the appointment of discovery head Dean Li. Now, Merck is signing a decent-sized check to bring an IL-2 moonshot into the fold.

Merck will shell out roughly $1.85 billion for Pandion Pharmaceuticals, a biotech hoping to gin up regulatory T cells (Tregs) to treat a range of autoimmune disorders, the drugmaker said Thursday.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 102,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Tal Zaks, Moderna CMO (AP Photo/Rodrique Ngowi, via still image from video)

CMO Tal Zaks bids Mod­er­na a sur­prise adieu as biotech projects $18.4B in rev­enue, plots post-Covid ex­pan­sion

How do you exit a company after six years in style? Developing one of the most lucrative and life-saving products in pharma history is probably not the worst way to go.

Tal Zaks, Moderna’s CMO since 2015, will leave the mRNA biotech in September, the biotech disclosed in their annual report this morning. The company has already retained the recruitment firm Russell Reynolds to find a replacement.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 102,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Glax­o­SmithK­line re­thinks strat­e­gy for Covid-19 an­ti­body — not the Vir ones — af­ter tri­al flop. Is there hope in high-risk pa­tients?

In the search for a better Covid-19 therapeutic, GlaxoSmithKline and Vir have partnered up on two antibodies they hope have a chance. GSK is also testing its own in-house antibody, and early results may have shut the door on its widespread use.

A combination of GSK’s monoclonal antibody otilimab plus standard of care couldn’t best standard of care alone in preventing death and respiratory failure in hospitalized Covid-19 patients after 28 days, according to data from the Phase IIa OSCAR study unveiled Thursday.

Photo: Shutterstock

Bio­phar­ma's suc­cess rate in bring­ing drugs to mar­ket has long been abysmal. Can new tools help rewrite that trou­bled past?

In 2011, a team of researchers at British drugmaker AstraZeneca had a problem they were looking to solve.

For years, drug discovery and development were a wasteland for innovation. Novel drugs largely fell into one of two categories — monoclonal antibodies and small molecules — and new therapeutic modalities were hard to come by. After a rush of promising approvals in the late 1990s — including then-Biogen’s CD20 targeting antibody breakthrough Rituxan — the field stagnated and attrition rates stayed sky-high. What exactly is the industry doing wrong? AstraZeneca asked itself.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.